Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
October 19, 2023
Czech Republic footballer Jakub Jankto has revealed he is 'really happy' that he can now play 'without hiding or being scared' after he became the first current international player to publicly come out as gay.
The 27-year-old, who joined Italian side Cagliari on a two-year contract in July, revealed the news in a post on social media in February as he followed the likes of Australian Josh Cavallo and Blackpool's Jake Daniels in sharing their sexuality.
He wrote: 'Like everybody else, I also want to live my life in freedom without fear, without prejudice, without violence, but with love. I am homosexual, and I no longer want to hide myself.'
The Czech star - who separated from his former partner Marketa Ottomanska, with whom he has a son, in 2021 - opened up about what it is like to play football today. 'It was a huge moment for me - but after six, seven months, I can say it wasn't a mistake,' Jankto told the BBC.
snip
Czech Republic footballer Jakub Jankto, who became the first current international player to publicly come out as gay, says he is 'really happy' he can now play 'without hiding or being scared'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12645859/International-footballer-Jakub-Jankto-says-really-happy-play-without-hiding-scared-coming-gay.htmlCzech Republic footballer Jakub Jankto has revealed he is 'really happy' that he can now play 'without hiding or being scared' after he became the first current international player to publicly come out as gay.
The 27-year-old, who joined Italian side Cagliari on a two-year contract in July, revealed the news in a post on social media in February as he followed the likes of Australian Josh Cavallo and Blackpool's Jake Daniels in sharing their sexuality.
He wrote: 'Like everybody else, I also want to live my life in freedom without fear, without prejudice, without violence, but with love. I am homosexual, and I no longer want to hide myself.'
The Czech star - who separated from his former partner Marketa Ottomanska, with whom he has a son, in 2021 - opened up about what it is like to play football today. 'It was a huge moment for me - but after six, seven months, I can say it wasn't a mistake,' Jankto told the BBC.
snip
October 18, 2023
With the progressive bloc likely to replace the populists in power, the relics of the latter and a polarised society will remain challenging.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/polands-historic-election-democracy-won
On Sunday, a parliamentary election took place in Poland described by many as the most important ballot since the transformation in 1989 to multi-party democracy. It indeed had the potential to decide the country’s future for years to come. The election could have allowed the national conservatives of Law and Justice (PiS), having governed for eight years, to set their position in stone or it could bring the opposition to power with a pivot in domestic and foreign policies. The PiS did win the most seats but most probably will lose power, due to its inability to form a majority government.
Record turnout
The PiS re-emerged at the top of the pile, with 35.38 per cent of the vote. But the opposition—comprising the liberal Civic Coalition (30.7 per cent), the centrist Third Way (14.4) and the Left Party (8.61)—received more than half of all votes and has a realistic chance of forming the next government. Since the far-right Konfederacja suffered a severe defeat (7.16 per cent), a new majority government under PiS leadership is impossible. Only the three opposition parties have a sufficient combined mandate to form a stable coalition. Paradoxically, the smaller parties decided the result of this ballot, though frequently portrayed as a battle between the PiS and Donald Tusk, the Civic Coalition leader it demonised. The competition could only be resolved by finding coalition partners. At the same time, the opposition in the Senate (the upper house) defended its majority, thanks to a pact in which the parties resolved not to compete against each other.
Regardless of the outcome, this election proved the resilience of Polish democracy, with a record turnout. In particular, the participation of the under-30s was higher than ever (68.8 per cent) and women’s votes were crucial: never before have so many gone to the polls (73.7 per cent). In constituencies outside Poland, more than 600,000 Polish citizens registered, with a turnout of over 90 per cent. The campaign was very emotional and at times brutal. Political tribalism and incivil discourse contributed to a severe polarisation in society, reflected in verbal attacks (Tusk was labelled ‘the personification of evil’) and physical interference (meetings with voters were interrupted by opponents). The state-controlled public media sustained a persistent bias, actively supporting the outgoing coalition, even during the debate before election day.
Election themes
The most important election themes were the relationship with Brussels, economic policies, women’s rights, migration and the war in Ukraine. Polish society is solidly Euro-enthusiastic, so no party dared call for a ‘Polexit’. Nevertheless, the European Union was very present in the campaign. Due to the erosion of the rule of law and judicial independence under the PiS, the EU has frozen funds for Poland within the Recovery and Resilience Facility. These much-needed monies would have helped not only to overcome the post-pandemic recession but also to balance the effects of rising inflation and especially energy prices. The cost of living has increased a lot lately and not even the generous social policies of the PiS government were able to cushion these effects.
snip
Poland's historic election: democracy won
With the progressive bloc likely to replace the populists in power, the relics of the latter and a polarised society will remain challenging.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/polands-historic-election-democracy-won
On Sunday, a parliamentary election took place in Poland described by many as the most important ballot since the transformation in 1989 to multi-party democracy. It indeed had the potential to decide the country’s future for years to come. The election could have allowed the national conservatives of Law and Justice (PiS), having governed for eight years, to set their position in stone or it could bring the opposition to power with a pivot in domestic and foreign policies. The PiS did win the most seats but most probably will lose power, due to its inability to form a majority government.
Record turnout
The PiS re-emerged at the top of the pile, with 35.38 per cent of the vote. But the opposition—comprising the liberal Civic Coalition (30.7 per cent), the centrist Third Way (14.4) and the Left Party (8.61)—received more than half of all votes and has a realistic chance of forming the next government. Since the far-right Konfederacja suffered a severe defeat (7.16 per cent), a new majority government under PiS leadership is impossible. Only the three opposition parties have a sufficient combined mandate to form a stable coalition. Paradoxically, the smaller parties decided the result of this ballot, though frequently portrayed as a battle between the PiS and Donald Tusk, the Civic Coalition leader it demonised. The competition could only be resolved by finding coalition partners. At the same time, the opposition in the Senate (the upper house) defended its majority, thanks to a pact in which the parties resolved not to compete against each other.
Regardless of the outcome, this election proved the resilience of Polish democracy, with a record turnout. In particular, the participation of the under-30s was higher than ever (68.8 per cent) and women’s votes were crucial: never before have so many gone to the polls (73.7 per cent). In constituencies outside Poland, more than 600,000 Polish citizens registered, with a turnout of over 90 per cent. The campaign was very emotional and at times brutal. Political tribalism and incivil discourse contributed to a severe polarisation in society, reflected in verbal attacks (Tusk was labelled ‘the personification of evil’) and physical interference (meetings with voters were interrupted by opponents). The state-controlled public media sustained a persistent bias, actively supporting the outgoing coalition, even during the debate before election day.
Election themes
The most important election themes were the relationship with Brussels, economic policies, women’s rights, migration and the war in Ukraine. Polish society is solidly Euro-enthusiastic, so no party dared call for a ‘Polexit’. Nevertheless, the European Union was very present in the campaign. Due to the erosion of the rule of law and judicial independence under the PiS, the EU has frozen funds for Poland within the Recovery and Resilience Facility. These much-needed monies would have helped not only to overcome the post-pandemic recession but also to balance the effects of rising inflation and especially energy prices. The cost of living has increased a lot lately and not even the generous social policies of the PiS government were able to cushion these effects.
snip
October 18, 2023
An enduring refugee crisis, the conflict is unlike any similar episode from World War II and its aftermath.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/israel-palestine-a-comparative-perspective
And so again there is war between Israelis and Palestinians. Wikipedia lists 16 wars or war-like clashes since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948—almost one every five years. Nearly everyone who has attempted to analyse the causes of this seemingly eternal conflict has sought explanations in the course of history. This has often led to a kind of historical debt accounting: who attacked whom, who displaced whom, who committed abuses and who massacred whom?
Unfortunately, this historical search for fundamental responsibility for the conflict has proved futile. Many Palestinians were expelled by the Israeli army during the war in 1948, but many chose to follow the calls of Arab leaders to leave and return after their armies had ‘thrown the Jews into the sea’. Or as the secretary general of the Arab League put it in 1947 (only two years after the full revelations of the Holocaust), ‘This war will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.’ The abuse and active displacement of parts of the Palestinian population by the Israeli army is however also well-documented. All in all, nothing of value for a resolution of the conflict has come out of this historical debt accounting, in which so many have been and remain engaged. Indeed, as the progressive Israeli social psychologist Arie Nadler has long argued, it is associated with an endless competitive struggle for the moral high ground of legitimate victimhood.
Comparative approach
A more fruitful way to understand this conflict is to use the comparative method established in the social sciences. Since one cannot, as typically in the natural sciences, carry out real experiments, one can seek explanations by comparing similar cases. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians then looks different. At the time of the Palestinian refugee disaster, many like episodes unfolded in Europe. In 1944 close to half a million Finns were forced to leave Karelia after this contested interposing region was attacked by the Soviet Union. One hundred thousand Romanians were expelled from Bulgaria in 1941. More than one million Poles were forced from areas annexed by the Soviets in 1945. More than 300,000 ethnic Italians were forced to leave Istria and Dalmatia (in contemporary Slovenia and Croatia) after 1943.
At least 12 million Germans who had lived since ‘time immemorial’ in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other eastern-European countries were displaced in 1945-46. Many had been active Nazis but certainly far from all. Not least the expulsion of the three million Germans from the Sudetenland in the Czech Republic was extremely brutal. None of these refugee catastrophes has produced anything which even comes close to the massive violence between Israelis and Palestinians. The distinction is that the other refugee populations have not to any great extent demanded a right to return. It was this very issue that made it impossible, in the Camp David negotiations in 2000 in the United States, to reach agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization: the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, persisted with that demand.
Crucial difference....................
snip
A Swedish version of this article appeared in Fokus
Israel-Palestine: a comparative perspective
An enduring refugee crisis, the conflict is unlike any similar episode from World War II and its aftermath.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/israel-palestine-a-comparative-perspective
And so again there is war between Israelis and Palestinians. Wikipedia lists 16 wars or war-like clashes since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948—almost one every five years. Nearly everyone who has attempted to analyse the causes of this seemingly eternal conflict has sought explanations in the course of history. This has often led to a kind of historical debt accounting: who attacked whom, who displaced whom, who committed abuses and who massacred whom?
Unfortunately, this historical search for fundamental responsibility for the conflict has proved futile. Many Palestinians were expelled by the Israeli army during the war in 1948, but many chose to follow the calls of Arab leaders to leave and return after their armies had ‘thrown the Jews into the sea’. Or as the secretary general of the Arab League put it in 1947 (only two years after the full revelations of the Holocaust), ‘This war will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.’ The abuse and active displacement of parts of the Palestinian population by the Israeli army is however also well-documented. All in all, nothing of value for a resolution of the conflict has come out of this historical debt accounting, in which so many have been and remain engaged. Indeed, as the progressive Israeli social psychologist Arie Nadler has long argued, it is associated with an endless competitive struggle for the moral high ground of legitimate victimhood.
Comparative approach
A more fruitful way to understand this conflict is to use the comparative method established in the social sciences. Since one cannot, as typically in the natural sciences, carry out real experiments, one can seek explanations by comparing similar cases. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians then looks different. At the time of the Palestinian refugee disaster, many like episodes unfolded in Europe. In 1944 close to half a million Finns were forced to leave Karelia after this contested interposing region was attacked by the Soviet Union. One hundred thousand Romanians were expelled from Bulgaria in 1941. More than one million Poles were forced from areas annexed by the Soviets in 1945. More than 300,000 ethnic Italians were forced to leave Istria and Dalmatia (in contemporary Slovenia and Croatia) after 1943.
At least 12 million Germans who had lived since ‘time immemorial’ in what is now Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other eastern-European countries were displaced in 1945-46. Many had been active Nazis but certainly far from all. Not least the expulsion of the three million Germans from the Sudetenland in the Czech Republic was extremely brutal. None of these refugee catastrophes has produced anything which even comes close to the massive violence between Israelis and Palestinians. The distinction is that the other refugee populations have not to any great extent demanded a right to return. It was this very issue that made it impossible, in the Camp David negotiations in 2000 in the United States, to reach agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization: the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, persisted with that demand.
Crucial difference....................
snip
A Swedish version of this article appeared in Fokus
October 18, 2023
International law places copious constraints on how Israel can order the evacuation of northern Gaza, to protect civilians.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/israels-evacuation-order-violates-international-law
In conflicts around the world, evacuations have long been used to rescue people from serious harm. During the second world war, for instance, thousands of children across Europe were sent to rural areas or abroad under evacuation schemes initiated by governments and child welfare agencies. The contrast in Gaza today is stark. We are witnessing an urgent, chaotic evacuation ordered by a belligerent party to the conflict, which is fast becoming a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel told 1.1 million people in northern Gaza to move to the south ahead of an impending ground invasion.
Put yourself, your family, your friends or colleagues into this horror for a moment. How would you evacuate if you or your child was sick? How would you get your elderly parents out if they couldn’t walk? How would you move rapidly to southern Gaza if you had no fuel or transport? Any of this would be hard at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a war zone, on short notice and with nowhere safe to go. As one 20-year-old woman, who had tried to flee south, said,
Insufficient and unrealistic
Evacuations in armed conflict are strictly governed by international humanitarian law, which seeks to balance military and humanitarian needs. Israel’s warning to civilians in Gaza of impending attacks must be ‘effective’, meaning it must not only reach people but allow them sufficient time to evacuate safely. The extremely tight time-frame Israel gave Gaza residents to leave is insufficient and unrealistic for an evacuation of this scale, especially amid its fast-tempo bombardment across the strip and under conditions of total siege.
Israel must also ensure evacuated civilians have the means to survive. International law requires it to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need. This includes food, water, medical supplies, clothing, bedding, shelter, heating fuel and other supplies and services essential for survival. The starvation of civilians is a war crime. Yet, Israel unlawfully imposed a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza in response to the Hamas attacks on Israeli border communities last week, ordering no electricity, food, water or gas into the territory. Cramming more than a million extra people into southern Gaza—doubling its population—will also place impossible strains on its infrastructure, which has already been much degraded by 16 years of blockade.
snip
Israel's evacuation order violates international law
International law places copious constraints on how Israel can order the evacuation of northern Gaza, to protect civilians.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/israels-evacuation-order-violates-international-law
In conflicts around the world, evacuations have long been used to rescue people from serious harm. During the second world war, for instance, thousands of children across Europe were sent to rural areas or abroad under evacuation schemes initiated by governments and child welfare agencies. The contrast in Gaza today is stark. We are witnessing an urgent, chaotic evacuation ordered by a belligerent party to the conflict, which is fast becoming a humanitarian catastrophe. Israel told 1.1 million people in northern Gaza to move to the south ahead of an impending ground invasion.
Put yourself, your family, your friends or colleagues into this horror for a moment. How would you evacuate if you or your child was sick? How would you get your elderly parents out if they couldn’t walk? How would you move rapidly to southern Gaza if you had no fuel or transport? Any of this would be hard at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a war zone, on short notice and with nowhere safe to go. As one 20-year-old woman, who had tried to flee south, said,
Insufficient and unrealistic
Evacuations in armed conflict are strictly governed by international humanitarian law, which seeks to balance military and humanitarian needs. Israel’s warning to civilians in Gaza of impending attacks must be ‘effective’, meaning it must not only reach people but allow them sufficient time to evacuate safely. The extremely tight time-frame Israel gave Gaza residents to leave is insufficient and unrealistic for an evacuation of this scale, especially amid its fast-tempo bombardment across the strip and under conditions of total siege.
Israel must also ensure evacuated civilians have the means to survive. International law requires it to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need. This includes food, water, medical supplies, clothing, bedding, shelter, heating fuel and other supplies and services essential for survival. The starvation of civilians is a war crime. Yet, Israel unlawfully imposed a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza in response to the Hamas attacks on Israeli border communities last week, ordering no electricity, food, water or gas into the territory. Cramming more than a million extra people into southern Gaza—doubling its population—will also place impossible strains on its infrastructure, which has already been much degraded by 16 years of blockade.
snip
October 18, 2023
Though it expanded the definition of discrimination, the ruling was a sharp setback for petitioners seeking a landmark victory on marriage equality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/world/asia/india-same-sex-marriage.html
https://archive.ph/muJVQ
India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea to legalize same-sex marriage, a stinging setback for gay people seeking equal rights in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.
A five-member bench of judges ruled unanimously against the petitioners, with the chief justice saying it was up to Parliament to create any laws recognizing same-sex unions. “The judgment is extremely disappointing,” said Anjali Gopalan, a petitioner in the case and the head of the Naz Foundation, a nonprofit group in New Delhi that works on sexual health issues.
Still, it offered a few glimmers of hope to same-sex marriage proponents, if largely rhetorical in some cases. The judges ruled that transgender people can marry other transgender people, and expanded the definition of discrimination. Among the four opinions they issued in the ruling, some were pointedly sympathetic to the petitioners.
“The right to choose one’s partner and the right to recognition of that union” ought to be observed, even if the union does not constitute marriage, Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, India’s chief justice, wrote in his verdict. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, however, fell within a two-member minority. And he concurred with all the other justices that the court was the wrong forum for seeking changes in marriage laws, writing that the judiciary “must be careful to not enter into legislative domain.”
snip
India's Top Court Rejects Gay Marriage, While Voicing Sympathy
Though it expanded the definition of discrimination, the ruling was a sharp setback for petitioners seeking a landmark victory on marriage equality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/world/asia/india-same-sex-marriage.html
https://archive.ph/muJVQ
India’s Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea to legalize same-sex marriage, a stinging setback for gay people seeking equal rights in this socially conservative country of 1.4 billion people.
A five-member bench of judges ruled unanimously against the petitioners, with the chief justice saying it was up to Parliament to create any laws recognizing same-sex unions. “The judgment is extremely disappointing,” said Anjali Gopalan, a petitioner in the case and the head of the Naz Foundation, a nonprofit group in New Delhi that works on sexual health issues.
Still, it offered a few glimmers of hope to same-sex marriage proponents, if largely rhetorical in some cases. The judges ruled that transgender people can marry other transgender people, and expanded the definition of discrimination. Among the four opinions they issued in the ruling, some were pointedly sympathetic to the petitioners.
“The right to choose one’s partner and the right to recognition of that union” ought to be observed, even if the union does not constitute marriage, Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, India’s chief justice, wrote in his verdict. Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, however, fell within a two-member minority. And he concurred with all the other justices that the court was the wrong forum for seeking changes in marriage laws, writing that the judiciary “must be careful to not enter into legislative domain.”
snip
October 18, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/opinion/netanyahu-israel-gaza.html
https://archive.ph/md0fa
“How could this happen?” we asked one another, neighbors in pajamas suddenly gathered in the not quite safety of the stairwell of our Jerusalem apartment building. Our first air-raid siren of the new war had just sounded. It was early on a holiday morning; I’d heard no news. In a jittery loud voice, a man from across the hall told about us the Hamas invasion of Israel that had just begun. That moment repeats on a loop in my mind — when I wake up at night and when the sirens repeat. A century has passed since then and no time at all. The news comes in jagged pieces that one’s mind cannot fit together: The rave in the countryside, where Hamas men hunted down and slaughtered young Israelis. Hamas’s taking grandmothers and young children as hostages and butchering families. And our army, on which we relied, in disarray, taking three days to regain control of the area bordering Gaza. More than a week later, the unfathomable counting of bodies and attempting to identify them continues. “How did this happen?” echoes in every conversation.
The reflexive answer is that Hamas is barbaric — and that it opposes not the occupation but our very existence here. This is true — and insufficient. For an Israeli, the real heart of the question is: Who allowed this to happen? Despite the agony, because of it, we must demand a national accounting for what made the military disaster possible: the hubris and complacency and, most of all, the delusions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. Mr. Netanyahu has been prime minister for 13 of the past 14 years. While the head of the Shin Bet security service and the commander of military intelligence have publicly taken responsibility, the prime minister has glaringly failed to do so. But if the army and country were unprepared for the Hamas invasion — as they clearly were —- there is no place else for the buck to stop.
Mr. Netanyahu’s latest government came to power just over nine months ago. It’s the most extreme he has led, because only extreme parties were willing to join a coalition with a prime minister on trial for corruption. His own Likud has become a party of lackeys; experienced politicians critical of him abandoned it. The government’s agenda — what appears to be virtually its only concern — has been funneling money to ultra-Orthodox schools, supporting West Bank settlement and, most of all, pushing through radical changes to the judicial system that would protect Mr. Netanyahu and the right’s hold on power. The attention of the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right politician known for his openly racist views, is divided between two jobs: While he occupies one of the most demanding roles in government, he also oversees settlement in the Defense Ministry.
The security cabinet, responsible for directing the military, has met only sporadically. In July the military chief of staff, Gen. Herzi Halevi, was reportedly unable to get a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu. Instead the general wrote the prime minister a letter, with a warning of danger to the army’s internal cohesion — apparently owing to the government’s judicial program. But whether he was distracted by his trial and immense public opposition to his plans or was overconfident in Israel’s advantage over its enemies, Mr. Netanyahu clearly wasn’t paying close attention to security this year. Blindness to the danger from Gaza has a longer history, though, and is rooted in a strategic choice that has guided Mr. Netanyahu since his return to power in 2009. (He first held office from 1996 to 1999.) Nearly two years before, Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip, splitting the nascent Palestinian polity in two. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah movement retained their limited power in autonomous areas of the West Bank. Though Mr. Abbas has never reached a two-state agreement with Israel, he has consistently favored that outcome.
snip
Netanyahu Led Us to Catastrophe. He Must Go.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/opinion/netanyahu-israel-gaza.html
https://archive.ph/md0fa
“How could this happen?” we asked one another, neighbors in pajamas suddenly gathered in the not quite safety of the stairwell of our Jerusalem apartment building. Our first air-raid siren of the new war had just sounded. It was early on a holiday morning; I’d heard no news. In a jittery loud voice, a man from across the hall told about us the Hamas invasion of Israel that had just begun. That moment repeats on a loop in my mind — when I wake up at night and when the sirens repeat. A century has passed since then and no time at all. The news comes in jagged pieces that one’s mind cannot fit together: The rave in the countryside, where Hamas men hunted down and slaughtered young Israelis. Hamas’s taking grandmothers and young children as hostages and butchering families. And our army, on which we relied, in disarray, taking three days to regain control of the area bordering Gaza. More than a week later, the unfathomable counting of bodies and attempting to identify them continues. “How did this happen?” echoes in every conversation.
The reflexive answer is that Hamas is barbaric — and that it opposes not the occupation but our very existence here. This is true — and insufficient. For an Israeli, the real heart of the question is: Who allowed this to happen? Despite the agony, because of it, we must demand a national accounting for what made the military disaster possible: the hubris and complacency and, most of all, the delusions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. Mr. Netanyahu has been prime minister for 13 of the past 14 years. While the head of the Shin Bet security service and the commander of military intelligence have publicly taken responsibility, the prime minister has glaringly failed to do so. But if the army and country were unprepared for the Hamas invasion — as they clearly were —- there is no place else for the buck to stop.
Mr. Netanyahu’s latest government came to power just over nine months ago. It’s the most extreme he has led, because only extreme parties were willing to join a coalition with a prime minister on trial for corruption. His own Likud has become a party of lackeys; experienced politicians critical of him abandoned it. The government’s agenda — what appears to be virtually its only concern — has been funneling money to ultra-Orthodox schools, supporting West Bank settlement and, most of all, pushing through radical changes to the judicial system that would protect Mr. Netanyahu and the right’s hold on power. The attention of the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right politician known for his openly racist views, is divided between two jobs: While he occupies one of the most demanding roles in government, he also oversees settlement in the Defense Ministry.
The security cabinet, responsible for directing the military, has met only sporadically. In July the military chief of staff, Gen. Herzi Halevi, was reportedly unable to get a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu. Instead the general wrote the prime minister a letter, with a warning of danger to the army’s internal cohesion — apparently owing to the government’s judicial program. But whether he was distracted by his trial and immense public opposition to his plans or was overconfident in Israel’s advantage over its enemies, Mr. Netanyahu clearly wasn’t paying close attention to security this year. Blindness to the danger from Gaza has a longer history, though, and is rooted in a strategic choice that has guided Mr. Netanyahu since his return to power in 2009. (He first held office from 1996 to 1999.) Nearly two years before, Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip, splitting the nascent Palestinian polity in two. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah movement retained their limited power in autonomous areas of the West Bank. Though Mr. Abbas has never reached a two-state agreement with Israel, he has consistently favored that outcome.
snip
October 18, 2023
https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1714464588127690908
snapshot:
Oh hey look--- they arsonist wants everyone to help him put out the fire he set, fanned, maintained
with kindling, straw and gasoline and has been spreading to the neighboring homes for the last 16 years.https://twitter.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1714464588127690908
snapshot:
October 18, 2023
https://prospect.org/environment/2023-10-17-biden-can-stop-playing-manchins-climate-game/
Housed in the Department of Energy but nonetheless an independent agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, pronounced “furk”) governs the interstate transmission of fracked gas and electricity. FERC determines what factors to consider when reviewing new natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FERC’s authority to approve or deny this infrastructure makes the agency a key partner in the push to address the climate crisis and aid in the green-energy transition. Unfortunately, FERC has been embroiled in partisan gridlock for months following chair Richard Glick’s departure from the Commission in January. Glick, a Democrat, was forced to vacate his position after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) sabotaged his renomination, due to Glick’s attempts to integrate climate and environmental justice into FERC’s decision-making processes. This has saddled FERC with a 2-2 split of Democrats and Republicans since the beginning of the year, hobbling its effectiveness.
Of course, Manchin has tried to undermine the Biden administration’s climate agenda at every turn; as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he has placed several blockades on climate-related nominees and policies. So, when reports revealed last week that Sen. Manchin was finally willing to support a candidate to replace Glick at FERC, there was mild hope that the agency could once again be equipped to perform its crucial role in the climate fight. However, this optimism quickly dissipated. Manchin’s rumored choice for the position is David Rosner, a FERC energy industry analyst currently detailed to Manchin’s own Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Although Rosner’s confirmation would provide Democrats with the partisan majority needed to implement their agenda (assuming he is in fact a Democrat), he is neither the climate champion Biden should nominate nor the one the public deserves at this critical juncture in climate action.
Prior to his time staffing the Senate, Rosner worked on the energy team at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), which presents itself as an independent source of objective research. But investigative journalist Ken Silverstein found that BPC functionally operates as an advocate for “policies that benefit its donors,” including such notorious fossil fuel interests as ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and more. BPC uses its professed objectivity to launder the reputations of these donors, and to tout the industry’s preferred (false) climate “solutions” to sustain their own profits at the continued cost of the planet. For example, in 2022, BPC held an event that concluded that the oil and gas industry had a crucial role to play as a large-scale provider of clean energy in the green-energy transition. BPC has also voiced effusive support for technologies such as carbon capture and carbon storage, despite the IPCC’s warnings that such technologies are not only unproven, but would ultimately prolong the use of oil and gas.
Rosner himself also has a long record of personally peddling industry talking points. In 2013, Rosner was the lead author on BPC’s technical comments supporting an Energy Department study that justified the expansion of LNG exports. The study downplayed risks that exports would “lower wages and employment in the U.S., while enriching energy companies by billions of dollars, including their overseas investors,” and “require a big increase in fracking to supply LNG tankers, leaving communities across the country with costly environmental damage and health threats.” In 2014, as the notoriously fossil fuel–friendly Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) took the reins of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Rosner penned a blog post outlining BPC’s hopes for her chairmanship. It included a call to reconsider the “country’s geopolitical posture in light of the boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production.” In September of that year, before Rosner left BPC, he co-authored a report that set the stage for the ultimate repeal of the crude oil export ban, a catastrophic legacy of the Obama era.
snip
Biden Can Stop Playing Manchin's Climate Game
https://prospect.org/environment/2023-10-17-biden-can-stop-playing-manchins-climate-game/
Housed in the Department of Energy but nonetheless an independent agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, pronounced “furk”) governs the interstate transmission of fracked gas and electricity. FERC determines what factors to consider when reviewing new natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FERC’s authority to approve or deny this infrastructure makes the agency a key partner in the push to address the climate crisis and aid in the green-energy transition. Unfortunately, FERC has been embroiled in partisan gridlock for months following chair Richard Glick’s departure from the Commission in January. Glick, a Democrat, was forced to vacate his position after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) sabotaged his renomination, due to Glick’s attempts to integrate climate and environmental justice into FERC’s decision-making processes. This has saddled FERC with a 2-2 split of Democrats and Republicans since the beginning of the year, hobbling its effectiveness.
Of course, Manchin has tried to undermine the Biden administration’s climate agenda at every turn; as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he has placed several blockades on climate-related nominees and policies. So, when reports revealed last week that Sen. Manchin was finally willing to support a candidate to replace Glick at FERC, there was mild hope that the agency could once again be equipped to perform its crucial role in the climate fight. However, this optimism quickly dissipated. Manchin’s rumored choice for the position is David Rosner, a FERC energy industry analyst currently detailed to Manchin’s own Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Although Rosner’s confirmation would provide Democrats with the partisan majority needed to implement their agenda (assuming he is in fact a Democrat), he is neither the climate champion Biden should nominate nor the one the public deserves at this critical juncture in climate action.
Prior to his time staffing the Senate, Rosner worked on the energy team at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), which presents itself as an independent source of objective research. But investigative journalist Ken Silverstein found that BPC functionally operates as an advocate for “policies that benefit its donors,” including such notorious fossil fuel interests as ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and more. BPC uses its professed objectivity to launder the reputations of these donors, and to tout the industry’s preferred (false) climate “solutions” to sustain their own profits at the continued cost of the planet. For example, in 2022, BPC held an event that concluded that the oil and gas industry had a crucial role to play as a large-scale provider of clean energy in the green-energy transition. BPC has also voiced effusive support for technologies such as carbon capture and carbon storage, despite the IPCC’s warnings that such technologies are not only unproven, but would ultimately prolong the use of oil and gas.
Rosner himself also has a long record of personally peddling industry talking points. In 2013, Rosner was the lead author on BPC’s technical comments supporting an Energy Department study that justified the expansion of LNG exports. The study downplayed risks that exports would “lower wages and employment in the U.S., while enriching energy companies by billions of dollars, including their overseas investors,” and “require a big increase in fracking to supply LNG tankers, leaving communities across the country with costly environmental damage and health threats.” In 2014, as the notoriously fossil fuel–friendly Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) took the reins of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Rosner penned a blog post outlining BPC’s hopes for her chairmanship. It included a call to reconsider the “country’s geopolitical posture in light of the boom in unconventional oil and natural gas production.” In September of that year, before Rosner left BPC, he co-authored a report that set the stage for the ultimate repeal of the crude oil export ban, a catastrophic legacy of the Obama era.
snip
October 18, 2023
The Democratic Socialists of America’s initial reaction to Hamas’s murders of more than 1,200 Israelis, the vast majority of them civilians, has brought a torrent of entirely merited criticism down upon the group. Liberals and leftists who have long championed Palestinian statehood and Israel’s total withdrawal from the West Bank, and who now oppose the obliteration of Gaza that Israel is threatening, found DSA’s promotion of what was effectively a pro-Hamas rally in Times Square to be outrageous. They found the initial failure of DSA’s national political committee to condemn Hamas correspondingly repugnant. That’s also been the reaction of many DSA members, too. A number of them have been debating publicly leaving the organization—largely, older members, many of whom belonged to one of DSA’s two predecessor organizations, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). Some have belonged to one of those groups and then DSA for a full half-century. I’m one of them.
The current tumult reflects a larger division that besets DSA. In one camp, there are members who believe the Democratic Party is an arena in which, given the limits of the American electoral system, socialists must be active, that socialists should work in coalition with other progressive groups and constituencies, and that DSA members in public office should have the same freedom of action as other elected progressives. The fact that DSA grew tenfold only when Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran in Democratic primaries, and have thrived in office while promoting socialist programs but also while taking positions at odds with DSA’s leadership (both explicitly and forcefully condemned Hamas), bolsters this camp’s case.
The other camp has a more sectarian outlook. It contains some longtime members of small, largely defunct left groups who only joined DSA because it had suddenly grown larger than any socialist grouping since the days of Gene Debs (ironically, because of the anti-sectarian campaigns of Bernie and AOC). A few years ago, some of these sectarians actually sought to expel one DSA member of Congress, New York’s Jamaal Bowman, from the organization for his failure to toe their line on Palestine, though they did not succeed.
The vast majority of DSA members are many decades too young to have come to the organization from either its founding groups or one of those now-defunct sects. Most are fresh off America’s college campuses. They bring to DSA both the blessings and curses of youth: boundless energy and discomfort with complication and nuance. Many have done heroic work on behalf of tenants and striking workers; many also seem impervious to the tactical necessities that DSA’s elected officials heed, or to the strategic importance of campaigning for non-DSA progressives, or even to the moral and political necessity of linking ends with means (which led to American Communists’ support for Stalin and some current DSAers’ knee-jerk refusal to condemn Hamas).
snip
The divisions in DSA, and why, after 48 years in the organization, I'm quitting.
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-10-17-divisions-in-dsa-israel-gaza/The Democratic Socialists of America’s initial reaction to Hamas’s murders of more than 1,200 Israelis, the vast majority of them civilians, has brought a torrent of entirely merited criticism down upon the group. Liberals and leftists who have long championed Palestinian statehood and Israel’s total withdrawal from the West Bank, and who now oppose the obliteration of Gaza that Israel is threatening, found DSA’s promotion of what was effectively a pro-Hamas rally in Times Square to be outrageous. They found the initial failure of DSA’s national political committee to condemn Hamas correspondingly repugnant. That’s also been the reaction of many DSA members, too. A number of them have been debating publicly leaving the organization—largely, older members, many of whom belonged to one of DSA’s two predecessor organizations, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). Some have belonged to one of those groups and then DSA for a full half-century. I’m one of them.
The current tumult reflects a larger division that besets DSA. In one camp, there are members who believe the Democratic Party is an arena in which, given the limits of the American electoral system, socialists must be active, that socialists should work in coalition with other progressive groups and constituencies, and that DSA members in public office should have the same freedom of action as other elected progressives. The fact that DSA grew tenfold only when Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran in Democratic primaries, and have thrived in office while promoting socialist programs but also while taking positions at odds with DSA’s leadership (both explicitly and forcefully condemned Hamas), bolsters this camp’s case.
The other camp has a more sectarian outlook. It contains some longtime members of small, largely defunct left groups who only joined DSA because it had suddenly grown larger than any socialist grouping since the days of Gene Debs (ironically, because of the anti-sectarian campaigns of Bernie and AOC). A few years ago, some of these sectarians actually sought to expel one DSA member of Congress, New York’s Jamaal Bowman, from the organization for his failure to toe their line on Palestine, though they did not succeed.
The vast majority of DSA members are many decades too young to have come to the organization from either its founding groups or one of those now-defunct sects. Most are fresh off America’s college campuses. They bring to DSA both the blessings and curses of youth: boundless energy and discomfort with complication and nuance. Many have done heroic work on behalf of tenants and striking workers; many also seem impervious to the tactical necessities that DSA’s elected officials heed, or to the strategic importance of campaigning for non-DSA progressives, or even to the moral and political necessity of linking ends with means (which led to American Communists’ support for Stalin and some current DSAers’ knee-jerk refusal to condemn Hamas).
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,632
